Did the Pope just call skeptics on man-made climate change stupid?


#124

It’s the thought that counts. :roll_eyes:


#125

I disagree. Many people in this forum continue to display a misunderstanding of what climate change theory is proposing. Concepts like weighted averages and using several imperfect data sets to develop data that is more accurate than either, calibration, etc. - these are all concepts that the average person, regardless of how much casual reading he does, is unable (or more likely, unwilling) to understand. Just look at the citations people make. They are not to primary data. They are to biased analyses. Even when Breitbart provides links to primary data to support their analyses, I wonder how many Breitbart readers bother to click through to those references to decide for themselves if the Breitbart analysis of the data is correct?

Well, then I will consider your opinion along with the many more scientists who disagree with you.

You mean you have seen claims of data fraud. I have seen some of those claims too, and looked carefully at their reasoning. I find them more full of holes than the data they are supposedly denigrating.

Most scientists do no engage in such attacks. I cannot defend what others do.

That is clearly not enough, for I have seen graphs from Breitbart and graphs from IPCC and graphs from NOAA, and they are not the same.

That depends on how closely you expect the models to agree with actual measured data. From what I have seen the models are surprisingly good.

Correlations are indeed permissible in a science that is statistical in nature. Consider the correlations detected between certain diseases and various other factors. Those correlations are taken seriously long before the mechanism for causation is established, if ever.

You are confusing scientific claims and media claims. Most scientists do not go in for that kind of piecemeal approach to causation. For example, we know that steroid use in baseball has increased the number of home runs hit in a year. But no one can say for sure that any one home run was the result of steroid use.

I have read that article before. It is only about the Cook paper. What about Carlton 2015, Stenhouse 2014, Verheggen 2014, Anderegg 2010, Doran 2009, Oreskes 2004? Do you have links to refute each of them too?

No. With matters I do not understand, I listen to the voices that have had the best track record. That would be mainstream scientists.


#126

I think each person can speak for themselves. In real science the standard route to finding the truth of a thing is the skeptical route. If you think you do not have the capabilities to understand the evidence for or against climate change then at least ignore the noise of opinion and ask to see the evidence only that HUMAN activity is a significant driver of it. This is the real argument here. Not whether or not man made CO2 can affect warming. it is how significant is mankind’s contribution to it. If someone cannot show you the evidence to support this simply then either they are lying or do not understand it themselves (“if you cannot explain something simply then you probably don’t fully understand it - Albert Einstein”). The argument you get from the most vociforous proponents of AGW is that it is complicaated…trust the scientists who say it is so. This has the hallmark of a religious belief and not science at all. Science is open to scrutiny and is skeptical of itself. In contrast the AGW acolytes line up regularly to brow beat anyone who is skeptical (and with good reason and intentions) about the hypothesis of AGW. That does not look like an earnest scientific movement to me.

Look at the attacks that prominent scientists like Curry, Axel Morner, Spencer have undergone simly for disagreeing with the idea of AGW based on nothing other than data? Look at the scandals of NASA and University of East Anglia etc and other institutions skewing and conspiring to hide climate data. Even if you don’t understand the data at least read between the lines and see what is going on in the world.

I didn’t nor did I see anyone here quote Brietbart. Even so no experienced researcher or person capable of critical thinking would believe whatever they read whether it be from Brietbart, CNN, BBC or MAD comics. Literary criticism is important and relevant sources also.

You mean you have seen claims of data fraud. I have seen some of those claims too, and looked carefully at their reasoning. I find them more full of holes than the data they are supposedly denigrating.

No I have seen the actual evidence of fraud contained in the leaked climategate emails.
Some of which are listed hereunder:

These emails have been verified as coming from the actual originators in the From field of the emails by technology experts by analyzing them. Further the contents and originators of the emails have been confirmed by those accused of fraud also. It is the meaning of the email that they dispute. Of those who didn’t go quiet for months they say that their emails are being “taken out of context”. Got to love this. What they have attempted to do however was explain away their apparent fraud as “the way scientists speak”. which is an obvious nonsense if you read the emails themselves.

Most scientists do no engage in such attacks. I cannot defend what others do.

I never said that most scientists do this. It is usually some paid shill or talking head who seeks to discredit the messengers of contrary evidence refuting claims of AGW using invective and erpsonal attacks to villify the argument and silence disagreement. Sometimes it may be a scientist or it may be a politician. The net effect is that dissenting voices are brow beaten into silence or caste as pariahs by the mainstream media and members of the scientific community with vested interests in carrying on the AGW narrative.

That is clearly not enough, for I have seen graphs from Breitbart and graphs from IPCC and graphs from NOAA, and they are not the same.

Breitbart is not a scientific group it is a news website. NOAA publishes data on global temperatures. The last dataset I downloaded from NOAA was back in 2014 and I plotted it against time in excel and I could find no statistical temperature increase (statistical warming last time I checked was at least 0.65 degrees Celsius over a 15 year period). SO yes I have looked at official data sources and plotted them myself it is not hard. But apart from that the IPCC admitted in their 2015 report that there had been a hiatus in warming for the previous 15 years even though fossil fuel use had been increasing exponentially. Given all that information what does common sense tell you? The interests and parties ignoring those glaring facts clearly is not interested in the truth of this matter if they will not even address them honestly.

That depends on how closely you expect the models to agree with actual measured data. From what I have seen the models are surprisingly good.

The models have not been “good” they have failed miserably. To make up for their failure to match the observed temperature their results have been “adjusted” afterwards (if not the data itself) or the observed data hidden all together. This is actually part of what the climategate scandal was about.


#127

You said:

Correlations are indeed permissible in a science that is statistical in nature. Consider the correlations detected between certain diseases and various other factors. Those correlations are taken seriously long before the mechanism for causation is established, if ever.

Nonsense. Correlations are NOT permissible in order to justify a scientific theory. They are used for further study to ascertain causality. Correlations used in medicine are NEVER used to justify cause and effect. They are simply identified en route to finding the cause and effective treatment of a disease. The only doctors who use correlation to justify a hypothesis are witch doctors and shamans as far as I know.

But no one can say for sure that any one home run was the result of steroid use.

No you cannot. Neither can you use this general idea (baseballers generally use steriods) to accuse any one baseballer of using steriods simply because he hit a homerun. You would need to pull out each baseballer and test them in a controlled environment for steriods. This has not been and cannot be done with our climate. We cannot remove all natural and constantly changing forcings from the Earth and study the effects of man made CO2 on the Earth in isolation to see if it results in warming. Neither can we ignore the significant effect of natural forcings while we are studying global temperatures.

I have read that article before. It is only about the Cook paper. What about Carlton 2015, Stenhouse 2014, Verheggen 2014, Anderegg 2010, Doran 2009, Oreskes 2004? Do you have links to refute each of them too?

I certainly do:

Carlton 2015 - He did not survey climate scientists (irrelevant)
Stenhouse 2014 - This was a survey of meterorologists NOT climate scientists
Verheggen 2014 - See this for an analysis of his results: https://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/07/29/new-study-undercuts-ipcc-keynote-finding-87796/
Anderegg 2010 - Here is an analysis of the seemingly biased survey:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html#Anderegg
Doran 2009 - This was the basis for the Cook paper I believe. Doran and Zimmerman wrote:

“In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.”

And here are the questions that they asked those scientists:

Q1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” 76 of 79 (96.2%) answered “risen.”

Q2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” 75 of 77 (97.4%) answered “yes.”

So out of a sample size of 3146 they excluded all but 77 scientists and on this basis the 97% figure was created. This just keep getting sadder.

Oreskes 2004 - See this review of the paper which has more to do with medical patients and less to do with climate science:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/095830508783900744

I listen to the voices that have had the best track record. That would be mainstream scientists.

Ah. Argumentum ad auctoritatem (argument from authority) is invalid especially when it comes to science. And what do you know of the track record of these global warming advocates? Do you know when they tell the truth or not or which of them receive funding fro green energy initiatives or green corporations or the government to propmote these ideas?

The good thing is facts are not corrupt but people can be and they can be wrong too. 99% of mainstream scientists believed the Sun revolved around the Earth in Galileo’s time…they were all wrong. A single lab assistant can disprove an entire theory so long as he produces evidence (something AGW does not have) Einstein was not a qualified scientist nor a doctoral student when he started formulating his theories either. Listening to people about science and believing them simply because they have fooled you into believing that you are too thick to understand something is giving your power over to people who may not have your best interest at heart. This makes science into a religion not a secular discipline. You would be no better than the Creationists if this is your approach to science.


#128

Has anyone changed his or her mind yet? :confused:


#129

Lol. You are funny. I don’t think the purpose of dialogue is to change anyone’s mind but to come closer to finding the truth of a thing. The more information we have the better more informed choices we can make and the closer we get to answers. For example I didn’t know about some of the surveys done on climate change that were referenced here so I was able to learn about them even though they were not worth much to support the argument for AGW. It was good to know about other attempts at finding a consensus.


#130

When AGW is presented with clarity and honesty, I expect there is 99% consensus among scientists. We would find agreement among skeptics and warmists to the below statements:

  • C02 is a GHG
  • Man is increasing the level of CO2
  • ergo, man is increasing the temperature on top of natural variation

Where the consensus falls apart is in the projected degree of warming from man’s activities.
The IPCC estimates warming somewhere between 2.5-4.5C for doubling, but research estimates range from 1.0C to >8C in warming. Since the appropriate policy response varies dramatically with 2C vs 6C warming, we need to narrow this estimate before constructive action will be achieved.


#131

The Pope doesn’t need to be a scientist to decide that it is immoral to deny a risk exists when millions of innocent people will suffer should it prove to be viable. When weighing the costs vs benefits of assuming that climate change is real, the Pope sees it as a crisis of greed. That is why he constantly laments the way modern society values money more than people.


#132

What makes you think that evidence is something everyone can understand? I go back to Einstein. What real evidence could I give someone who has never studied Relativity that it has been proved true? I could say “time slows down when you go fast.” and they would say “can I watch the clock go slower?” And I would say, “no, if you were traveling with the clock your brain would also be going slower,” and which point, if they had never heard of Einstein, they would say “now you are just fun’in with me!” Nope. I don’t think I could prove to anyone who had not heard of Einstein or studied physics that any of Special Relativity is true. All I could do is say “smart scientists have checked it out and it is true. Trust them.”

In the case of AGW, the chain of reasoning is just as complex as Relativity. I don’t expect it to be provable to a non-practitioner until the much later when the consequences are obvious even from casual observation.

If your question is what portion of the CO2 increase is due to man’s activity, that question has been answered much more definitively than the more general question of how CO2 affects warming.

Einstein is also to have said “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler!”

Of course it is. Then do it like a scientist. Do the primary research and develop and prove a contrary hypothesis.

I think the harping about the East Anglia e-mails looks more like brow beating to me.

Did you see them in the complete context? Or is more information just not that important?

What period of time did you analyze?


#133

Well, I guess attacking the Pope will be part of the new forum.


#134

A person does not have to be knowledgeable or accurate when it comes to climate change to respond to the possibility of climate change in an intelligent or stupid manner. I would have to say that the word “stupid” would apply to anyone who would think it acceptable to continue risk potential disaster for the sake of lifestyle choices, big trucks, cheap gas, etc.

One word I would not use for such people is pro-life.


#135

Actually, I think this debate is ended. There is nothing more that can be said. We are going in circles now. You, me, and others have provide over and over that the human contribution to warming is not a consensus. The video I posted from the Congressional hearing outlines the whole topic, but i know these people have not watched it. The reason for that is the same reason why “the academy” wished to squash all opposing point-of-view, which is very unscientific. As the old saying goes, “They have made up their mind, don’t confuse them with the facts.”

Personally, I could care less which side is correct. I am a pursuing of truth and when I see “the academy” effect, my feather bristle.


#136

I studied physics in college and did a minor in Environmental Physics. I am also an avid reader and researcher of all things science. Even without this all it takes to understand if a theory is sound or not is to find out what the theory is proposing and look at the evidence presented via explanation or the numbers. I have done both for AGW and have not seen anything to warrant good evidence. I have actually seen the opposite including data fraud and personal attacks against anyone who is legitimately skeptical (because science by its very nature is skeptical and not accepting blindly on faith) about the hypothesis of AGW

Okay. So you find climatology too inexact for theory. Odd, but I get that. What about chemistry and physics? Do you also doubt the existence of CO2, or believe that we are producing CO2 at prodigious rates? Do you doubt that CO2 reflects back infrared radiation?

I think your point is valid in that it shows climatologist too eager to advance predictions based on data that may very well be corrupted. No doubt funding for climate studies corrupts scientists from Shell Oil and Greenpeace alike. But how can the chemistry be denied? Of course AGW is inaccurate, as are most new theories. That is kind of how science works. A good theory will still always be lacking. I don’t expect politicians and pundits to understand this, but surely anyone with training in science must know this is how theories work.


#137

Same way I feel. I’d be all for major changes if it was supported by actual science.

We could turn around CO2 levels in 40 years if we really wanted to, just build cheap Thorium MSR reactors and use them to replace coal generators across the world. We could thus still provide cheap and safe reliable power to the developing world.


#138

Read the article in full and compare to your post. The divergence is not subtle.


#139

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-chemistry/chapter/the-laws-of-thermodynamics/

Instructive here is that the laws of thermo govern spontaneous processes to the extent to which heat energy (transferred by excited atoms in the case of the oceans) should be in the direction of increased entropy. If therefore the oceans were “hiding” the extra heat on the globe preventing any significant temperature increase from being measured for over 15 years then this would defy physical laws unless some other force which would prevent the movement of heat in the direction of increased entropy (surface temperatures) existed only for the last 15+ years. What is this force and why has it only been operational during the last 15 years and why was it not causing heat to be absorbed and stay hidden in the deep oceans before 1998-1999? More questions than answers using their logic. What would have made sense for the IPCC to say is that there was no warming and they cannot yet explain exactly why. If you cannot measure the temperature of the deep oceans then how can you say that this accounts for the hiatus in global warming? Further to this why continue to say that the Earth has continued to warm even though you just admitted it has not warmed statistically for 15+ years?

Thanks for your response and the link.
I don;t recommend this link, however: it is correct for the most part, but a little too sloppy about things that must be state with care, in ways that cause confusion.

It is difficulty to follow your argument and the particular part aspect of AGW that you are contesting. However, it seems that your argument hinges on a presupposition of equilibrium, which I don’t think that climate scientists make and lack of precision in defining of systems and surroundings.


#140

Nice Avatar. Go Stillers.


#141

I don’t consider it charitable to harm and kill people thru climate change and its knock-on effect.


#142

It is not charitable to have people’s heat bill triple to quad-ripple. That is what would have happened under Obama. He even said publicly that his polices would put the coal plants out of business quickly. That was totally irresponsible but consistent with the agenda of the left.

To avoid the triple increases in cost, coal must be phased out slowly and replaced with nuclear power (the type of reactor the is safe and does not produce waste). The alternatives, such as sun and wind, will never be enough.

Such is the knock-off effect of going “green” too quickly.

In addition, the human participation climate change myth is being promoted primarily for political and financial reasons, which have nothing to do with saving the planet.


#143

Seriously.

But then on the other hand since the extra bit of warming during the middle ages lined up neatly with some of the higher crop yields and lower war times? I’m not sure a bit of warming now is going to be all that different.

Then again. People do get a bit grouchier when it’s warmer. And a huge chuck of innovation did seem to come from places with cooler climates where it was vital to have to think ahead by seasons. So?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.